Necessary Deterrent or an Outdated Practice?
Capital Punishment, or the much more familiar term Death Penalty, remains one of the most contentious issues in our political-legal framework. Capital punishment originates from two broad theories of punishment. Firstly, the Retributive theory of punishment, which believes that an eye for an eye will not make the whole world blind but will incapacitate those who initially vouch to take an eye.
Secondly, the Deterrent theory of punishment, which propounds that punishment should primarily serve as an example for society rather than merely teaching a lesson to the convict or providing justice to the victim, or survivor in cases of rape.
Here, I will deliberate upon the second theory’s nexus with the death penalty to remain in sync with the topic. The Deterrent theory of punishment itself violates fundamental principles of justice, as it neither punishes nor reforms the convict, nor does it serve justice to the victim. This theory aims to set an example for society to avoid venturing into heinous criminal activities that challenge humanity collectively.
There is no statistical evidence supporting the reduction of heinous crimes or the unique deterrent effect brought by death penalties. The Justice Verma Committee report and the Law Commission of India have also opposed such punishments in cases related to violence against women. However, it is also important to understand the government’s perspective regarding the need for the death penalty in the legal framework of this country.
The number of offences punishable by death has increased in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, from 12 to 18. The most common types of offences that have provisions for the death penalty include:
- Acts of terrorism
- Murder (The murder rate per lakh population remained steady at 2.1 in 2022)
- Rape involving grievous injury or the death of the survivor (The crime rate, calculated per 100,000 women, increased from 58.8 in 2018 to 66.4 in 2022, reflecting a 12.9% rise over this period)
- Drug trafficking (Notably, Punjab reported a significant rise in NDPS cases, with 4,039 cases in 2020, increasing to 5,766 in 2021, and further to 7,433 in 2022)
Why does the government want to retain the death penalty? It aims to send a strong message to deter those contemplating such heinous offenses. However, it is problematic to categorize all such offences under ‘consciously committed’ or not. For example, criminology students would better understand, certain crimes are committed impulsively rather than through premeditated planning. What is the use of deterrence in such a scenario?
It is possible to create deterrence of this magnitude, but only if such fear or horror is instilled among the masses through widespread publicity of such death penalty incidents. If you imagine this scenario, I believe the image of post-Islamic revolution Iran comes to mind. The question is, do we want to bequeath our future generations with such a framework of justice, or do we aspire for something better? I want to conclude this short monologue with an affirmation that justice is not about vengeance; it’s about change—a change that comes from within, a change that reforms society, a change that beautifies our surroundings with greater liberty and freedom, a change that keeps us human.